Sri V.venkateswara Rao

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDGE: FAMILY COURT VISAKHAPATNAM

PRESENT: SRI V.VENKATESWARA RAO, M.A., LLM.,

JUDGE: ADDL FAMILY COURT

FAC JUDGE: FAMILY COURT

VISAKHAPATNAM

MONDAY, THE 19th DAY OF MARCH, 2012

O.P.1134/2011 Between:

Molleti Kranthi, S/o. Nookaraju, Hindu, aged 28 years, employee, R/at:D.No.14-17, Plot No.6, R.R.V.Puram, Visakhapatnam.

…Petitioner. And:-

Molleti (Ganivada) Bharghavi, W/o. Molleti Kranthi, Hindu, Aged 27 years, Software Engineer, HTC Global Service India (P), LTD., R/at: D.No.6-3-1192/V, Kundah Bangh, Begumpeta, Hyderabad-16. C/o. Ganivada Seetharam Babji, D.No.44-15-14/1, 80 feet road, Thatichetlapalem, Near Santhoshimata temple, Visakhapatnam-16. …Respondent.

This petition is coming on this day i.e. 19-03-2012 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri B.B.R.Srinivasa Rao &

B.Koteswara Rao-Advocates for Petitioner and of Sri B.A.Raja Rao &

M.Jayasree-Advocates for Respondent and having stood over for consideration this court made the following:

ORDER

1.This petition is filed under Sec.13(1)(ia) of the Hindu

Marriage Act, seeking dissolution of the marriage by the petitioner/husband against the respondent/wife.

2.The brief averments of the petition are :-

The marriage of the petitioner-Molleti Kranthi was performed with respondent-Molleti Bhargavi as per the Hindu caste custom and rites on 4-10-2009 at Dasapalla Hotel, Visakhapatnam. It was a love marriage, performed without any lanchanams. After their marriage, they never lived with their parent’s house of the petitioner and they lived happily for ten days after marriage in Chennai, where he was employed. Thereafter the respondent has humiliated the petitioner and left him without any just cause. Later she came to

Hyderabad and secured a job. The efforts of the petitioner for mediation with respondent through elders failed. The respondent refused to join him as she used to lead luxurious life, often flight services. They have no children.

3. The petitioner has reliably learnt that the respondent closely associated with one Dr.Biswas Das, Ms.,Geostro Surgeon,

Seven Hills Hospital, Visakhapatnam. The respondent rejected the petitioner from the year 2009 for more than two years. She has no interest to live with him. He also got issued legal notice but there is no response from her. Hence the petition.

4.The respondent filed counter admitting the relation and denying the averments of the petition and also allegations made against her. He further averred that after marriage, they lived together for only 4 days only and during those days she could not adjust with him for which he cannot blame her. Dr.Biswas- Das of

Seven Hills Hospital conducted a critical surgery and saved her life, she has got high regard and gratitude for him and his wife

Dr.Mamatha who is also working in the same hospital as a Doctor and became close to their family with that gratitude only. There are no merits in the petition and the petition be dismissed.

5.The efforts for settlement through reconciliation failed.

6.To prove the case of petitioner, PW.1 is examined and

Exs.A.1 to A4 marked. On behalf of respondent RW.1 was examined and no document is marked. Ex.A.1 is the marriage card, Ex.A.2 is the marriage photos of the petitioner and respondent, Ex.A3 is the legal notice to the respondent along with postal receipt, Ex.A4 is the returned R.P. cover(original).

7.The point for determination is :

Whether the petitioner is entitled for dissolution of marriage as prayed for?

8.P O I N T:

Admittedly, the marriage of the petitioner Molleti

Kranthi/PW.1 performed with respondent/Molleti- Bhargavi as per the

Hindu Caste and Custom Rites in Visakhapatnam on 04-10-2009, it is a love marriage. After marriage both of them lived together for few days in Chennai where petitioner was employed. Thereafter disputes arose between them and they started living separately. The respondent secured a job in Hyderabad and living there. Ex.A.1 is the marriage card, Ex.A.2 is the marriage photos of the petitioner and respondent, Ex.A3 is the legal notice to the respondent along with postal receipt, Ex.A4 is the returned R.P. cover (original). The mediations between parties also failed.

9.The burden is on the petitioner to prove that after marriage the respondent humiliated him and after staying only for 10 days, she rejected him without any just cause and failed to join him.

Several efforts made by him through family elders and mediators but she refused to join him.

10.To prove his case, he was examined as P.W.1 and deposed in the similar lines of petition averments and marked exhibits A1 to

A4.

11.His evidence even in cross examination reveals that they lived separately for more than 2 years before filing this case. He admitted that after marriage both of them lived only for 4 days where he is employed and subsequently differences arose, later they were living separately as all mediations failed. He also admitted that the elders declared there is no scope of re-union as they developed aversion against each other. The elders also advised him to pay

Rs.4,00,000/- to the respondent towards permanent alimony as full and final settlement and hence he paid that amount by way of two

DDs having no other option.

12.He categorically stated that there is no scope of re- union between them. He also admitted that the respondent under went surgery before marriage conducted by Dr.B.B.Das in that connection she became close friend to them. He also admitted that legal notice sent was returned. He denied the suggestion that respondent never deserted him and the differences arose due to mis- understandings and non-compatibility of minds and their marriage was irretrievably broken down. These facts elicited clearly prove that they lived separately for more than 2 years before filing this case. Even though their marriage was love marriage but there is no scope for reunion between them.

13.The evidence of PW.1 is also corroborated by the admissions elicited from the cross examination of RW.1/ G.Bhargavi.

She categorically admitted that both of them are living separately from more than 2 years due to differences and after marriage they lived together only for 4 days in Chennai where he was employed.

Due to differences she went to her parent’s house. Subsequent mediations through elders for re-union also failed. Even the elders declared that there is no scope of re-union between them, as they developed aversion against each other. She also stated that she never received legal notice; she shifted to Hyderabad in connection with her job. She admitted receiving of Rs.4,00,000/- from the petitioner as advised by the elders by way of two DDs., towards full and final settlement and stated that she has no future claims against

PW.1. She categorically stated that she is not at all willing to live with him and differences arose between them due to non-compatibility of minds that their marriage was irretrievably broken down.

14.Further she denied that PW.1 made several efforts through elders and personally for re-union that she refused to join him.

Further she admitted in her cross examination that both of them are not in talking terms that they are living separately from 3 years.

15.This evidence clinchingly establish the case of the petitioner that they are living separately for more than 2 years. Thus petitioner is able to prove cruelty on part of the respondent to seek dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion also.

The point is answered in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.

16.In the result, the petition is allowed, dissolving the marriage between both parties. No costs.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 19th day of MARCH, 2012.

JUDGE: ADDL.FAMILY COURT

(FAC)JUDGE:FAMILY COURT

VISAKHAPATNAM

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined

For Petitioner:For Respondent :

PW.1 :Molleti KranthiRW.1:Molleti(Ganivada) Bhargavi

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Petitioner:

Ex.A.1/Marriage card Ex.A.2/--Marriage photos of the petitioner and the respondent. Ex.A3/12-9-2011legal notice to the respondent along with postal receipt. Ex.A4/28-9-2011Return R.P.cover

For Respondent :NIL

JUDGE:AFC

FAC: JUDGE:FC:VSP

Date of presentation : .2011 Date of filing : .2011

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDGE: FAMILY COURT VISAKHAPATNAM

PRESENT: SRI V.VENKATESWARA RAO, M.A., LLM.,

JUDGE: ADDL FAMILY COURT

FAC JUDGE: FAMILY COURT

VISAKHAPATNAM

MONDAY, THE 19th DAY OF MARCH, 2012

O.P.1134/2011

Between:

Molleti Kranthi, S/o. Nookaraju, Hindu, aged 28 years, employee, R/at:D.No.14-17, Plot No.6, R.R.V.Puram, Visakhapatnam.

…Petitioner. And:-

Molleti (Ganivada) Bharghavi, W/o. Molleti Kranthi, Hindu, Aged 27 years, Software Engineer, HTC Global Service India (P), LTD., R/at: D.No.6-3- 1192/V, Kundah Bangh, Begumpeta, Hyderabad-16. C/o. Ganivada Seetharam Babji, D.No.44-15-14/1, 80 feet road, Thatichetlapalem, Near Santhoshimata temple, Visakhapatnam-16. …Respondent.

This petition is filed under Sec.13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking dissolution of the marriage by the petitioner/husband against the respondent/wife. A fixed Court fee of Rs.10/- is paid u/Art I (vii) Sch.II of A.P.C.F. & S.V.Act. This petition is coming on this day i.e. 19-03-2012 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri B.B.R.Srinivasa Rao & B.Koteswara Rao-Advocates for Petitioner and of Sri B.A.Raja Rao & M.Jayasree-Advocates for Respondent and having stood over for consideration, this Court doth order; and

D E C R E E

i)that thepetition be and the same is hereby allowed, dissolving the marriage between parties dt.04.10.2009; and ii)that there be no costs.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 19th day of MARCH, 2012.

JUDGE, ADDL. FAMILY COURT

FAC: FAMILY COURT

VISAKHAPATNAM

Memorandum of Costs

No costs memo filed on either side.

JUDGE, AFC.,

FAC: FC., VSP.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDGE FAMILY COURT AT VISAKHAPATNAM

PRESENT: SRI V.VENKATESWARA RAO, M.A., LLM.,

JUDGE: ADDL FAMILY COURT

FAC JUDGE: FAMILY COURT

VISAKHAPATNAM

MONDAY THE 26th DAY OF MARCH, 2012

O.P.1416/2011

Between:

Dr.K.V.Syamala, W/o. Dr.K.Ramesh Babu, Hindu, aged 35 years, R/at:D.No.39-18-4/2, Madhavadhara, Visakhapatnam.

…Petitioner. And:-

Dr.K.Ramesh Babu, S/o. Subba Rao, Hindu, aged about 38 years, Medical Officer, R/at:PHC- center, Kamepalli, Prakasam District. …Respondent.

This petition is coming on this day i.e. 19-3-2012 for final hearing

before me in the presence of Sri.M.S.Madhav-Advocate for Petitioner and

Sri.A.Raj Kumar-Advocate for respondent and having stood over for consideration this court made the following:

ORDER

1.This petition is filed under Sec.13 (i) (a) (b) of the Hindu

Marriage Act, seeking dissolution of the marriage by the petitioner-wife against the respondent-husband.

2.The brief averments of the petition are as follows :-

The marriage of the petitioner-K.V.Syamala was performed with respondent-Dr.K.Ramesh Babu as per the Hindu Rites and Caste

Customs on 19-02-2003 at Madhavadhara, Visakhapatnam. After marriage they led their conjugal life happily for some time at Nellimarla, 2

Vizianagaram and Visakhapatnam. Petitioner is the eye-specialist working in Visakhapatnam eye-hospital. At the time of marriage her parents gave dowry Rs.2,50,000/-, gold ornaments and Rs.3,00,000/- for marriage expenditure. The marriage is also consummated and they were blessed with a child. Subsequently differences arose between them but they could not resolve the differences with the intervention of the elders also. The respondent got issued a legal notice on 20-05-2003 for which she sent a reply with correct facts. After the birth of the male child on 03-12-2003 respondent never cared to look after the petitioner or her child and willfully deserted her. There was no proper response, though her father addressed a letter to his parents for naming ceremony. The efforts made by the petitioner expecting change in the attitude of the respondent but in vain. So the parents of the respondent miserably failed in solving their dispute and respondent deserted her for more than 10 years and also subjected to mental harassment as she was kept away from him without any fault on her part.

3.The respondent-Dr.K.Ramesh Babu filed counter admitting the relationship and denying the averments in the petition and also the allegations made against him, subjecting the petitioner to prove all the allegations. He stated that he already paid permanent alimony to the petitioner and the minor child in GOP.53/2011, so the petitioner is seeking for divorce, he has no objection to grant the same.

4. The efforts made for settlement through re-conciliation and mediations failed.

3

5.To prove the case of petitioner, PW.1 was examined and

Exs.A.1 to A3 are marked. Respondent reported no oral evidence.

Arguments heard.

6.The point for consideration is :-

Whether the petitioner is entitled for dissolution of

marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion as prayed for?

7.P O I N T:

Admittedly, the marriage of the petitioner Dr.K.V.Syamala-

PW.1 performed with respondent-Dr.K.Ramesh Babu as per the Hindu

Rites and Caste Customs on 19-02-2003 at Madhavadhara,

Visakhapatnam in the presence of the elders. After marriage they lead their conjugal life for some time at different places Nellimarla,

Vizianagaram and Visakhapanam. They were blessed with a child after wed-lock. Thereafter differences arose between them and lived separately. There were also exchange of notices between them. Ex.A1 is the wedding card, Ex.A2 is the marriage photos, Ex.A3 is the birth extract of their son born on 03-12-2003. The respondent also filed O.P.192/2004 for divorce against the petitioner and PW.1 filed M.C.71/2004 claiming maintenance. Both cases were disposed under common order and both cases were dismissed. Later respondent filed Section-9 petition for restoration of conjugal life and guardian O.P. for custody of his son vide

O.Ps.51 and 53/2011 later both matters were disposed due to compromise for an amount of Rs.6,25,000/-.

8.The burden is on the petitioner to prove that the respondent subjected her to cruelty and deserted her for more than 2 years prior to filing of the case to seek dissolution of marriage. Petitioner deposed in 4 similar lines of petition averments that she was subjected to mental cruelty after marriage by the respondent and neglected her and her child after delivery and deserted her for more than 10 years by keeping away after filing divorce case.

9.The evidence of PW.1 that both of them are living separately for about 10 years is not at all disputed in her cross examination. It is deemed to have been admitted by the respondent which prove her claim the respondent deserted her for all these years. The fact that he filed divorce case after exchange of legal notices also corroborate her evidence that the respondent neglected her inspite of several mediations but not taking her to lead conjugal life. He filed Section-9 application at belated stage which was also dismissed.

10.It is admitted in the cross-examination of PW.1 that the elders declared that there is no scope of re-union between them and they advised the respondent to pay Rs.6,25,000/- towards full and final settlement for herself and her son and it was paid by the respondent by way of D.D., and received by her. Her evidence is very clear that both parties fighting court litigation of divorce case and maintenance case since the year 2004 and from that period they never united to lead conjugal life and this period is more than 7 years. Thus the respondent deserted her without any just cause for more than 2 years prior to filing of the case he opted to pay permanent alimony to her and her child advised by the elders without having any interest to lead conjugal life. Accepting

Rs.6,25,000/- by the petitioner towards full and final settlement is not fatal to the case of the petitioner because she has no other option to resolve her marital problem as they were fighting court litigation for 9 years.

5

Ultimately elders also declared that there is no scope of re-union. This petitioner is able to prove the ground of desertion for more than 2 years on the part of the respondent. But she is unable to prove the cruelty on the part of the respondent because her evidence is not convincing so far as ground of cruelty is concern. Therefore the ground of cruelty is not established by her. However she is entitled to seek dissolution of the marriage on the ground of desertion. The non-examination of the respondent also fatal to this case which clearly supports evidence of the petitioner, his evidence stands un-rebutted and has to be accepted.

Hence the point is answered in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.

11.In the result, the petition is allowed, dissolving the marriage between the parties. No costs.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 26 th day of MARCH, 2012

JUDGE: ADDL.FAMILY COURT

(FAC) JUDGE:FAMILY COURT

VISAKHAPATNAM

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined

For Petitioner:For Respondent :

PW.1 :Dr.K.V.SyamalaRW.1:Dr.K.Ramesh Babu

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Petitioner:

Ex.A.1 is the Copy of Wedding card.

Ex.A.2 is the Copy of Marriage photo.

Ex.A3 is the Birth extract of their son viz., Satya Pavan- born on 03-12-2003.

For Respondent :

-NIL-

JUDGE:AFC

FAC: JUDGE:FC:VSP

Date of Presentation:12-12-2011 Date of filing:12-12-2011.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDGE FAMILY COURT AT VISAKHAPATNAM

PRESENT: SRI V.VENKATESWARA RAO, M.A., LLM.,

JUDGE: ADDL FAMILY COURT

FAC JUDGE: FAMILY COURT

VISAKHAPATNAM

MONDAY THE 26th DAY OF MARCH, 2012

O.P.1416/2011

Between:

Dr.K.V.Syamala, W/o. Dr.K.Ramesh Babu, Hindu, aged 35 years,R/at:D.No.39-18-4/2,Madhavadhara, Visakhapatnam. …Petitioner. And:-

Dr.K.Ramesh Babu, S/o. Subba Rao, Hindu, aged about 38 years, Medical Officer, R/at:PHC- center, Kamepalli, Prakasam District. …Respondent.

1.This petition is filed under Sec.13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking dissolution of the marriage by the petitioner/wife against the respondent/husband.

2.A fixed court fee of Rs.10/- is paid u/Art.I (vii) Sch.II of A.P.C.F. & S.V.Act.

3.This petition is coming on this day i.e. 19-3-2012 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri.M.S.Madhav-Advocate for Petitioner and Sri.A.Raj- Kumar-Advocate for respondent and having stood over for consideration this court doth Order; and

DECREE

i)that the petition be and the same is hereby allowed, dissolving the marriage between the parties dt:19-02-2003; and ii) that there be no costs.

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 26th day of March, 2012.

JUDGE: ADDL.FAMILY COURT

(FAC) JUDGE:FAMILY COURT

VISAKHAPATNAM

Memorandum of costs No cost memo filed on either side.

JUDGE:AFC

FAC: JUDGE:FC:VSP

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDGE FAMILY COURT AT VISAKHAPATNAM

PRESENT: SRI V.VENKATESWARA RAO, M.A., LLM.,

JUDGE: ADDL FAMILY COURT

FAC JUDGE: FAMILY COURT

VISAKHAPATNAM

MONDAY THE 26th DAY OF MARCH, 2012

O.P.1416/2011

Between:

Dr.K.V.Syamala, W/o. Dr.K.Ramesh Babu, Hindu, aged 35 years, R/at:D.No.39-18-4/2, Madhavadhara, Visakhapatnam.

…Petitioner. And:-

Dr.K.Ramesh Babu, S/o. Subba Rao, Hindu, aged about 38 years, Medical Officer, R/at:PHC- center, Kamepalli, Prakasam District. …Respondent.

This petition is coming on this day i.e. 19-3-2012 for final hearing

before me in the presence of Sri.M.S.Madhav-Advocate for Petitioner and

Sri.A.Raj Kumar-Advocate for respondent and having stood over for consideration this court made the following:

ORDER

1.This petition is filed under Sec.13 (i) (a) (b) of the Hindu

Marriage Act, seeking dissolution of the marriage by the petitioner-wife against the respondent-husband.

2.The brief averments of the petition are as follows :-

The marriage of the petitioner-K.V.Syamala was performed with respondent-Dr.K.Ramesh Babu as per the Hindu Rites and Caste

Customs on 19-02-2003 at Madhavadhara, Visakhapatnam. After marriage they led their conjugal life happily for some time at Nellimarla, 2

Vizianagaram and Visakhapatnam. Petitioner is the eye-specialist working in Visakhapatnam eye-hospital. At the time of marriage her parents gave dowry Rs.2,50,000/-, gold ornaments and Rs.3,00,000/- for marriage expenditure. The marriage is also consummated and they were blessed with a child. Subsequently differences arose between them but they could not resolve the differences with the intervention of the elders also. The respondent got issued a legal notice on 20-05-2003 for which she sent a reply with correct facts. After the birth of the male child on 03-12-2003 respondent never cared to look after the petitioner or her child and willfully deserted her. There was no proper response, though her father addressed a letter to his parents for naming ceremony. The efforts made by the petitioner expecting change in the attitude of the respondent but in vain. So the parents of the respondent miserably failed in solving their dispute and respondent deserted her for more than 10 years and also subjected to mental harassment as she was kept away from him without any fault on her part.

3.The respondent-Dr.K.Ramesh Babu filed counter admitting the relationship and denying the averments in the petition and also the allegations made against him, subjecting the petitioner to prove all the allegations. He stated that he already paid permanent alimony to the petitioner and the minor child in GOP.53/2011, so the petitioner is seeking for divorce, he has no objection to grant the same.

4. The efforts made for settlement through re-conciliation and mediations failed.

3

5.To prove the case of petitioner, PW.1 was examined and

Exs.A.1 to A3 are marked. Respondent reported no oral evidence.

Arguments heard.

6.The point for consideration is :-

Whether the petitioner is entitled for dissolution of

marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion as prayed for?

7.P O I N T:

Admittedly, the marriage of the petitioner Dr.K.V.Syamala-

PW.1 performed with respondent-Dr.K.Ramesh Babu as per the Hindu

Rites and Caste Customs on 19-02-2003 at Madhavadhara,

Visakhapatnam in the presence of the elders. After marriage they lead their conjugal life for some time at different places Nellimarla,

Vizianagaram and Visakhapanam. They were blessed with a child after wed-lock. Thereafter differences arose between them and lived separately. There were also exchange of notices between them. Ex.A1 is the wedding card, Ex.A2 is the marriage photos, Ex.A3 is the birth extract of their son born on 03-12-2003. The respondent also filed O.P.192/2004 for divorce against the petitioner and PW.1 filed M.C.71/2004 claiming maintenance. Both cases were disposed under common order and both cases were dismissed. Later respondent filed Section-9 petition for restoration of conjugal life and guardian O.P. for custody of his son vide

O.Ps.51 and 53/2011 later both matters were disposed due to compromise for an amount of Rs.6,25,000/-.

8.The burden is on the petitioner to prove that the respondent subjected her to cruelty and deserted her for more than 2 years prior to filing of the case to seek dissolution of marriage. Petitioner deposed in 4 similar lines of petition averments that she was subjected to mental cruelty after marriage by the respondent and neglected her and her child after delivery and deserted her for more than 10 years by keeping away after filing divorce case.

9.The evidence of PW.1 that both of them are living separately for about 10 years is not at all disputed in her cross examination. It is deemed to have been admitted by the respondent which prove her claim the respondent deserted her for all these years. The fact that he filed divorce case after exchange of legal notices also corroborate her evidence that the respondent neglected her inspite of several mediations but not taking her to lead conjugal life. He filed Section-9 application at belated stage which was also dismissed.

10.It is admitted in the cross-examination of PW.1 that the elders declared that there is no scope of re-union between them and they advised the respondent to pay Rs.6,25,000/- towards full and final settlement for herself and her son and it was paid by the respondent by way of D.D., and received by her. Her evidence is very clear that both parties fighting court litigation of divorce case and maintenance case since the year 2004 and from that period they never united to lead conjugal life and this period is more than 7 years. Thus the respondent deserted her without any just cause for more than 2 years prior to filing of the case he opted to pay permanent alimony to her and her child advised by the elders without having any interest to lead conjugal life. Accepting

Rs.6,25,000/- by the petitioner towards full and final settlement is not fatal to the case of the petitioner because she has no other option to resolve her marital problem as they were fighting court litigation for 9 years.

5

Ultimately elders also declared that there is no scope of re-union. This petitioner is able to prove the ground of desertion for more than 2 years on the part of the respondent. But she is unable to prove the cruelty on the part of the respondent because her evidence is not convincing so far as ground of cruelty is concern. Therefore the ground of cruelty is not established by her. However she is entitled to seek dissolution of the marriage on the ground of desertion. The non-examination of the respondent also fatal to this case which clearly supports evidence of the petitioner, his evidence stands un-rebutted and has to be accepted.

Hence the point is answered in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.

11.In the result, the petition is allowed, dissolving the marriage between the parties. No costs.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 26 th day of MARCH, 2012

JUDGE: ADDL.FAMILY COURT

(FAC) JUDGE:FAMILY COURT

VISAKHAPATNAM

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined

For Petitioner:For Respondent :

PW.1 :Dr.K.V.SyamalaRW.1:Dr.K.Ramesh Babu

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Petitioner:

Ex.A.1 is the Copy of Wedding card.

Ex.A.2 is the Copy of Marriage photo.

Ex.A3 is the Birth extract of their son viz., Satya Pavan- born on 03-12-2003.

For Respondent :

-NIL-

JUDGE:AFC

FAC: JUDGE:FC:VSP

Date of Presentation:12-12-2011 Date of filing:12-12-2011.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDGE FAMILY COURT AT VISAKHAPATNAM

PRESENT: SRI V.VENKATESWARA RAO, M.A., LLM.,

JUDGE: ADDL FAMILY COURT

FAC JUDGE: FAMILY COURT

VISAKHAPATNAM

MONDAY THE 26th DAY OF MARCH, 2012

O.P.1416/2011

Between:

Dr.K.V.Syamala, W/o. Dr.K.Ramesh Babu, Hindu, aged 35 years,R/at:D.No.39-18-4/2,Madhavadhara, Visakhapatnam. …Petitioner. And:-

Dr.K.Ramesh Babu, S/o. Subba Rao, Hindu, aged about 38 years, Medical Officer, R/at:PHC- center, Kamepalli, Prakasam District. …Respondent.

1.This petition is filed under Sec.13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking dissolution of the marriage by the petitioner/wife against the respondent/husband.

2.A fixed court fee of Rs.10/- is paid u/Art.I (vii) Sch.II of A.P.C.F. & S.V.Act.

3.This petition is coming on this day i.e. 19-3-2012 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri.M.S.Madhav-Advocate for Petitioner and Sri.A.Raj- Kumar-Advocate for respondent and having stood over for consideration this court doth Order; and

DECREE

i)that the petition be and the same is hereby allowed, dissolving the marriage between the parties dt:19-02-2003; and ii) that there be no costs.

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 26th day of March, 2012.

JUDGE: ADDL.FAMILY COURT

(FAC) JUDGE:FAMILY COURT

VISAKHAPATNAM

Memorandum of costs No cost memo filed on either side.

JUDGE:AFC

FAC: JUDGE:FC:VSP

IN THE COURT OF JUDGE: FAMILY COURT, VISAKHAPATNAM

PRESENT:- SRI V.VENKATESWARA RAO, M.A., L.L.M.,

JUDGE, ADDL. FAMILY COURT,

FAC: FAMILY COURT,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

TUESDAY, the 20 th day of MARCH, 2012

FCOP.1382/2010

Between

Balaga Venkata Ramanamurthy @ Naidubabu, S/o Late Lingamnaidu, Hindu, Aged 46 years, Cultivation, Residing at Kondapuram Village in Palakonda Mandal, Srikakulam District. ……. Petitioner And:

Balaga Latha, W/o Venkata Ramanamurthy, C/o Dannana Satyanarayana, Aged 40 years, Presently Residing at D.No.1-6-8/1, Sector-II, MVP Colony, Visakhapatnam-17, Visakhapatnam District, City

Senior Civil Judge Court, Visakhapatnam.

…….Respondent

This petition is coming for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri A.Bhaskara Rao, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri

M.Siva Rama Krishna, Advocate for respondent and the same having been stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following:-

O R D E R

This petition is filed under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, by the petitioner – husband against the respondent – wife seeking restitution of conjugal rights.

1.Brief facts of the petition are as follows:

The respondent - Balaga Latha is the legally wedded wife of petitioner - Balaga Venkata Ramanamurthy and the marriage of petitioner and respondent took place at Kondapuram Village as per the Hindu Caste Custom and Rites at the house of petitioner.

She is none other than the daughter of his maternal uncle. During their lawful wed-lock, they were blessed with a female child.

Petitioner studied 10th class, respondent studied B.A. She used to humiliate him as an illiterate person and used to visit her parents house very frequently and ultimately she left to her parents house in Visakhapatnam 3 years ago and failed to return. She took away the gold ornaments of 30 tulas and some cash while leaving the house. She never allowed the petitioner to see his daughter and used to threaten him to file cases and made his life miserable, even her parents also supported her. There were exchange of legal notices between parties. Petitioner sent suitable reply to her legal notice. Since respondent is not joining petitioner without any just cause, petitioner constrained to file this petition.

2.Respondent – Balaga Latha filed Counter admitting the relationship denying material averments of the petition denying the allegations made against her and her family members. It is further averred that at the time of marriage, her parents paid Rs.5 lakhs towards dowry, Sare saman worth Rs.2 lakhs, 20 tulas of gold and Bike AP31 H 5606 and a Maruthi Car AP 31 AV 9359.

Petitioner addicted to vices and neglected the respondent and her daughter. Petitioner and his mother used to harass the respondent physically and mentally by beating with their hands for additional dowry. Petitioner got performed tubectomy operation to the respondent to prevent pregnancy and started harassing her for not having male child. The petitioner neglected the respondent and her daughter without providing any provisions or money. The petitioner was wayward, he was shown certain contract works by her father at Visakhapatnam 12 years ago, but he failed to attend the work having no interest and left to

Kondapuram Village. Respondent used to suffer sleepless nights due to tension and fear of her life due to torture. The father of respondent arranged Rs.20,000/- for digging a bore well and also arranged funds for construction of 1st floor in 800 Sq.Yards in

Kondapuram Village spending Rs.2 lakhs, but there is no change in the attitude of petitioner. In the month of June 2009 petitioner beat the respondent indiscriminately during late night which was informed by respondent to her father and then she was shifted to

Hospital at the request of her father which was reported to the police and petitioner was chastised by the police where he apologized for his ill-treatment. The petitioner started demanding the respondent at the instance of his mother for mutual divorce.

In the 1st week of September 2009 respondent came to her parents house to see her brother who returned from USA., but she was not allowed to the house of petitioner when she returned. All her gold ornaments and clothes were in the custody of petitioner.

The efforts made through elders for reunion also failed. Having unable to bear the further harassment of the petitioner, she gave police complaint on 16.02.2011 in Palakonda Police Station and police called him and admonished him. But there is no change in his behaviour. The respondent filed DVC.8/2010 in IV Additional

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court and petition is liable to be dismissed.

1. The efforts for settlement through reconciliation and mediation for reunion between parties failed.

4. For the purpose of summary enquiry, no oral evidence adduced on either side.

5. Arguments heard.

6.Point for determination:-

Whether the petitioner is entitled to seek restitution of conjugal rights as prayed for?

POINT: 7.

Admittedly the respondent – Balaga Latha is the legally wedded wife of petitioner – Balaga Venkata Ramanamurthy and they are closely related as respondent is the daughter of maternal uncle of petitioner. Originally this case filed by petitioner in Senior

Civil Judge’s Court, Rajam, later it was transferred to this Court as

per the directions of the Honourable High Court in Transfer

CMP.170/2010. The respondent also filed DVC.8/2010 on the file

of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate which is pending.

During their lawful wed-lock, they were blessed with a female child who is now living with respondent. After her birth in the year 2009, both parties are living separately due to differences. There were exchange of legal notices between parties.

8. Petitioner is ready and willing to look after his wife with love and affection claiming that respondent is not willing to join him inspite of his several efforts and not allowed him to see his minor daughter by going away to her parents house without informing him. He denied subjecting respondent to any kind of cruelty. The respondent during the course of arguments expressed her willingness to join petitioner to lead conjugal life stating that she never refused to join him. In view of her plea that she wants to lead conjugal life with petitioner. An opportunity be given to the parties to live together without prejudice to the rights of both parties regarding allegations and counter allegations between them. Accordingly this petition is allowed directing respondent to join petitioner after receiving notice from the petitioner to join him within 2 months from the date of this order.

9. In the result, petition is allowed directing the respondent to join petitioner after receiving notice from the petitioner to join him within 2 months from the date of this order. No costs.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed

by her, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 20th day of MARCH, 2012.

JUDGE, ADDITIONAL FAMILY COURT

FAC: FAMILY COURT

VISAKHAPATNAM

Date of presentation: 09.02.2010 Date of filing : 22.11.2010

IN THE COURT OF JUDGE: FAMILY COURT, VISAKHAPATNAM

PRESENT:- SRI V.VENKATESWARA RAO, M.A., L.L.M.,

JUDGE, ADDL. FAMILY COURT,

FAC: FAMILY COURT,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

TUESDAY, the 20 th day of MARCH, 2012

FCOP.1382/2010

Between

Balaga Venkata Ramanamurthy @ Naidubabu, S/o Late Lingamnaidu, Hindu, Aged 46 years, Cultivation, Residing at Kondapuram Village in Palakonda Mandal, Srikakulam District. ……. Petitioner And:

Balaga Latha, W/o Venkata Ramanamurthy, C/o Dannana Satyanarayana, Aged 40 years, Presently Residing at D.No.1- 6-8/1, Sector-II, MVP Colony, Visakhapatnam-17, Visakhapatnam District, City Senior Civil Judge Court, Visakhapatnam. …….Respondent

This petition is filed under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, by the petitioner – husband against the respondent – wife seeking restitution of conjugal rights.

C.F. of Rs.10/- is paid under Sch.II Article-1 (VIII) of A.P.C.F. & S.V.Act 1956. This petition is coming for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri A.Bhaskara Rao, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri M.Siva Rama Krishna, Advocate

for respondent and the same having been stood over for consideration till this day, this

Court doth order; and

D E C R E E

i)that the petition be and the same is hereby allowed, directing the respondent to join petitioner after receiving notice from the petitioner to join him within 2 months from the date of this order i.e.20.03.2012; and ii)that there be no order as to costs.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 20th day of MARCH, 2012.

JUDGE, ADDL. FAMILY COURT

FAC: FAMILY COURT

VISAKHAPATNAM

Memorandum of Costs

No costs memo filed on either side.

JUDGE, AFC.,

FAC: FC., VSP.

INTHE COURT OF THE RENT CONTROLLER- CUM- IV ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL

JUDGE : AT VISAKHAPATNAM.

PRESENT: SRI V.VENKATESWARA RAO .,B.A.,B.L.,

RENT CONTROLLER CUM IV A.J.C.J.,

Visakhapatnam.

THURSDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH, 2011

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.1444/2010

BETWEEN:

Parida Subba Rao, S/o. late P.Satyanarayana, aged 58 years, Hindu, residing at D.No.38-21-19, 104 Area, Marripalem, Visakhapatnam. ……

..PLAINTIFF

And :

The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation represented by its Commissioner, Thenneti Bhavan, Asilmetta junction, Visakhapatnam …

..DEFENDANT

This suit is coming on 31-03-2011 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri N.Vasant Kumar and B.Sudhakar Reddy, advocates for the plaintiff and Defendant having remained set exparte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

Suit is filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendant corporation its men and agents, officials and who ever acts on behalf of he defendant corporation from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property includes disconnection of the water tap connection except under due process of law and for costs of the suit.

Plaintiff examined as PW1 and marked Ex.A1 to A-5. Reported no further evidence, hence evidence closed. Defendant remained exparte. Hence

PW1 and Ex.A1 to A-5 are remained unchallenged.

In the result, suit is decreed with costs and permanent injunction is granted restraining the defendant corporation its men and agents, officials and who ever acts on behalf of he defendant corporation from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property including disconnection of the water tap connection.

Pronounced by me in the open court this the 31st day of March, 2011

Rent Controller-Cum- IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For plaintiff: For defendants:

PW.1 : P. Subba Rao NONE

Documents marked. For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1 is the regulation certificate dt.14-5-1998

Ex.A2 is the final endorsement dt.26-6-2010.

Ex.A3 is the office copy of legal notice dt.13-8-2010

Ex.A4 is the basic penalization of GVMV, Visakhapatnam dt.01-02-2008

Ex.A5 is the postal acknowledgement.

For defendants: …NIL..

RC-CUMIV A.J.C.J.,

VSP

Date of presentation:08-12-2010 Date of filing :08-12-2010

INTHE COURT OF THE RENT CONTROLLER- CUM- IV ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL

JUDGE : AT VISAKHAPATNAM.

PRESENT: SRI V.VENKATESWARA RAO .,B.A.,B.L.,

RENT CONTROLLER CUM IV A.J.C.J.,

Visakhapatnam.

THURSDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH, 2011

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.1444/2010

BETWEEN:

Parida Subba Rao, S/o. late P.Satyanarayana, aged 58 years, Hindu, residing at D.No.38-21-19, 104 Area, Marripalem, Visakhapatnam. ……

..PLAINTIFF

And :

The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation represented by its Commissioner, Thenneti Bhavan, Asilmetta junction, Visakhapatnam …

..DEFENDANT

Suit is filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendant corporation its men and agents, officials and who ever acts on behalf of he defendant corporation from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property includes disconnection of the water tap connection except under due process of law and for costs of the suit. Value of the suit for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.10,000/- + Rs.10,000/- total Rs.20,000/- and Court Fee of Rs.786/- + Rs.786/- Total Rs.1,572/- is paid U/Sec.26 R/w. Article –I (B&C) of APCF and S.V.Act. This suit is coming on 31-03-2011 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri N.Vasant Kumar and B.Sudhakar Reddy, advocates for the plaintiff and Defendant having remained set exparte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following doth order and :

DECREE

1. that the suit be and the same is hereby decreed granting permanent injunction restraining the defendant corporation its men and agents, officials and who ever acts on behalf of he defendant corporation from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property including disconnection of the water tap connection.

2. that the defendants do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.2,224/- towards costs of the suit.

(Copy of the plaint schedule is herewith attached)

Given under my hand and seal of this Court, this the 31st day of March 2011.

Rent Controller-Cum-IV Addl. Jr. Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

For the Plaintiff For the Defendants

No costs memo filed Stamp on VakalatRs.2-00 Stamp on PlaintRs.1572-00 Process FeeRs.100-00 Advocate feeRs.500-00 Type chargesRs.50-00

Costs allowed Rs.2224-00

RC-CUM- IV AJCJ,

VSP

Copy of the plaint schedule is herewith attached to decree in O.S.1444/2010

RC-CUM- IV AJCJ,

VSP.